WASHINGTON-The U.S. Supreme Court, confronted with four appeals challenging the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) mobile-phone radiation standard and congressional intervention, in October granted the government’s request for more time to respond to lawsuits seeking to have the high court hear their cases.
Petitions for certiorari, filed by the EMR Network, Cell Phone Taskforce, Michael Worsham and David Fichtenberg, were filed between 9 September and 13 September. The FCC’s response and those of other parties were due 13 October. The responses to the four appeals are now due 20 November.
A federal appeals court in New York upheld the FCC’s radio frequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines in February.
Senator Patrick Leahy, Senator James Jeffords and Representative Bernard Sanders plan to support the EMR Network’s Supreme Court appeal in a filing in November. The EMR Network is represented by lawyer Whitney North Seymour, founder of the National Resources Defense Council.
The Vermont delegation sponsored legislation this year to repeal a provision in the 1996 telecom act that prevents local zoning boards from using health reasons as an argument to reject requests to build towers if carriers comply with federal RF radiation exposure guidelines. In the same bill, the lawmakers asked for US$10 million in federal funding for mobile-phone health research spread over five years.
Neither the Vermont delegation bill nor legislation championed by Representative Edward Markey-seeking US$25 million in federal funding for mobile-phone health research-made progress in Congress this year.
The FCC, due to a heavy workload, needed more time to a draft opposition to the four appeals before forwarding the opposition to the U.S. Justice Department. Justice is assisted by the solicitor general in Supreme Court appeals against the United States.
The FCC plans to file a consolidated opposition to the four petitions that are seeking hearings by the Supreme Court. The wireless industry is expected to back the government’s argument that the Supreme Court reject the appeals. The high court accepts a small percentage of the thousands of appeals it receives each year.
To bolster their case in support of federal radiation limits for phones, towers and other transmitters, the FCC and industry have argued that radiation guidelines were developed by federal health and safety agencies with a significant safety cushion.
However, some critics claim the FCC radiation standard does not protect against nonthermal health effects from mobile phones. Despite the industry’s assertion that most research has failed to link mobile phones to brain cancer and other diseases, some studies in recent years have found DNA breaks, genetic damage, increased cancer in laboratory rodents and other bioeffects from exposure to low levels of mobile-phone radiation.
In October, NeuroReport released findings of a Swiss study that found mobile-phone interaction with brain waves during human sleep. Other stages of sleep and subsequent waking were not affected by RF emissions, according to the data.
“This study demonstrates that a short exposure to an electromagnetic field similar to those emitted by mobile phones has an effect on brain physiology,” the NeuroReport press release stated.
While the study did not identify a potential health risk, the research conducted at the University of Zurich tends to undermine a key proposition held by industry and some in government-that mobile phones do not have any effect on human physiology.
The Swiss researchers, which included Neils Kuster, steered clear of the combustible health-risk question.
“Conclusions about possible adverse effects on human health are premature because the underlying mechanisms are unknown. Further studies are needed to determine the time course of the changes, to specify field strength-response relationships, and to define the critical field parameters (e.g. modulation, frequency),” the NeuroReport press release stated.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which has jurisdiction over radiation-emitting devices, but does not regulate them, said it sees no immediate danger to the United States’ 100 million mobile-phone subscribers. But FDA added it cannot guarantee mobile phones are completely safe without further study.
Likewise, the British government earlier this year said there is no reason for alarm, but urged consumers to take precautions. The government-sponsored scientific panel also recommended against exposing children to mobile phones.
The FDA and the Cellular Telecommunications Internet Association (CTIA), a group representing U.S. cellular carriers, are collaborating on research in the aftermath of industry-funded studies by Wireless Technology Research (WTR), some of which found genetic damage from mobile-phone radiation.
The FDA and CTIA put out requests for proposals several months ago to follow up on WTR micronucleus studies that identified genetic damage. A Motorola-sponsored researcher, Joseph Roti Roti, on his own found similar results.
The Supreme Court appeals and research come amid a resurgence in mobile-phone health lawsuits in the United States.
